Archived

Sopranos Episode Copyright

Zarbon, we've been through this before, and you wound up temporarily blocked for refusing to follow our loose guidelines. Have you read Wikiquote talk:Copyrights? Whatever you may feel is reasonable, U.S. copyright law does not acknowledge "5-8%" as fair use. In fact, Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group established that as little as 1 excerpt of fictional material per 3 episodes could be grounds for copyright infringement. (That's much less than 1%! The case was based on rephrased use of material for trivia; exact quotes would obviously be even greater violations.) It is our hope that this is a worst-case scenario, and that our guidelines will prove to be acceptable. But we can't guarantee this. The one thing we can guarantee is that people who relentlessly push back on those guidelines are the people who most jeopardize this project, encouraging the Foundation to consider shutting it down or spinning it off. This is unacceptable. Let's not go through this again. If you want to create a Sopranos quote website that violates copyright, believing that something that doesn't have preeminent visibility on the web isn't likely to attract the attention of the copyright holders, that's your business and your responsibility. But neither you nor I nor UDScott own Wikiquote. To paraphrase Jack Rudolph from Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, we must treat the property that we don't own with respect. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 15:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that but neither the sopranos nor dbz is created by Castle Rock Entertainment. One is by HBO and the other is by Toei Bird Studio and Shueisha, which in fact is a Japanese company that holds no further clarification to copyright over 5-8%...which in turn was passed over to translation for Funimation...which in turn didn't specify any case or any copyright violation for "over 5 quotes"...in no place does it specify this. Why create this boundary where it does not exist? Not every company holds that same limit...that largescale wall so to speak. When it comes to HBO, I seriously doubt that it would be infringement since it is seriously less than 5% of the actual transcript, as I had posted the entire transcript for UDScott to review. Please let us discuss this further before any action be taken. If it is required later that all episodes MUST be maximum of 5, then I will do it myself. But I currently see no requirement that states we cannot use up to a maximum of 10 memorable quotations. All I'm asking for is proof that HBO and/or Funimation have stated that we cannot use 5% of their transcript ratio. What you have proven however is that "it is better to be safe than sorry"...but that still isn't grounds for complete annihilation of the pages just because of being on the safe side. You know that I hold great respect for many contributors here, yourself particularly, and I seriously want to maintain this. Please just let us discuss my proposition before any action be taken. Bare in mind that I will be the first to trim down everything if it is a necessity and only a necessity and I will do it without a second thought. But I want to make sure that it is absolutely required, because some of the companies do not have that strict mentality of transcript infringement. Zarbon 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Zarbon, this is your usual pattern of just repeating over and over that you don't "see" the issue. Unless you are a lawyer representing the companies whose copyrights you are trying to assert quantities for, you are speaking without any authority or facts to back up your statements. In fact, your attempt to claim that companies have some definable quantity of material that can authoritatively be stated as fair use proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.

This is that last time I plan to tell you this: in the absence of a legal document from a copyright holder saying otherwise, there is no such thing as a percent or quantity of material that can be assumed to be fair use. The most casual perusal of any official website on copyright law (like the U.S. Copyright Office) will show that such numbers cannot be defined. U.S. courts alone (never mind the rest of the world) have demonstrated without any ambiguity that such a number does not exist. What we do by setting a goal is merely to reduce our exposure. It does not guarantee protection from lawsuits.

Your statement about expecting HBO or Funimation to prove something suggests to me that your confusion stems from a misunderstanding. Websites like YouTube have established policies of removing material upon notification of violations from claimed copyright holders. This is a very complex compromise of competing legal and financial interests that is still being tested, as is demonstrated by the ongoing one-billion-dollar suit between Viacom and YouTube/Google. This shaky compromise was only made possible, in my non-legal but well-informed opinion, because these competing companies have billions of dollars at stake. Wikiquote is a relatively small project of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, and the Foundation has already made its attitude about fair use abundantly clear — as little as possible, and the onus to avoid copyvio is on our editors, not the copyright holders. Only companies with million-dollar legal staffs have the werewithal to force copyright holders to prove something that U.S. law already grants them automatically. Wikimedia strives to be a good net citizen by not casually violating the law.

Therefore, we Wikiquotians are obligated to convince copyright holders that we are not violating their copyrights (not the other way around), and to convince the Wikimedia Foundation that we are not unduly exposing them to lawsuits. The people who make those decisions are the copyright holders, not us. We are only trying to give them less reason to object to our use of their material. If you persist in refusing to accept these arguments, and to invent ones of your own not based in any legal reality, you will give us no choice but to stop you from contributing again.

I know...you're right about every source of information and the examples you brought forth were convincing enough my dear friend. I looked back at the original copyvio statements. I now agree that 10 quotes is over the limit. But how many is the maximum we should have? Let me know and I will trim them all to the maximum number, because I want to be able to maintain the most quoteworthy and noteworthy. If the maximum is 8 (as discussed back in 2007) then I will trim them all to that amount...and if it is 5, I will try my best to trim to that amount, although it would admittedly diminish the pages astoundingly. Let me know and I will commit myself to that amount. I believe in wikiquote but I believe even more in the fellow contributors, and I hold you in high regard Jeffq, along with Kalki, InvisibleSun and some other members I have grown to respect greatly. Zarbon 03:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm sorry to be such a bear, but for some reason, I never find myself having to convince anyone that they should add more to an article. ☺ Setting a number is a serious problem, even as a guideline. We started out with "3-5, with rare sections of up to 8". This was almost immediately interpreted by some as "8 whenever I can get away with it" (much in the way, I think, that people like to drive 10 mph over any speed limit). The number eventually crept up to 10 and even 20 sometimes. That inflation must be stopped cold!

Because of the increasing attention to minimizing fair use, and repeated incidents of senior Wikimedians outside Wikiquote reasonably deleting or near-deleting vast amounts of material because we just aren't doing our job here, I've started User:Jeffq/Wikiquote:Exemption Doctrine Policy, an attempt to codify a formal guideline that will help us set expectations. It's in my user space mainly because I wrote nearly all of it so far — Poetlister helped clean it up a bit — but I'm hoping that we can eventually use it to create an "exemption doctrine policy", something that the Wikimedia Foundation expects of its projects that wish to use non-free material.

I invite you to read this experimental document. The two main points that would probably concern you is that for episodic fiction, I am strongly recommending that we specify (A) no more than 3-5 quotes per episode, AND (B) some limit on the total number of quotes per series (I just picked 100 to start with). This is rather more generous than Castle Rock v. Carol Publishing would suggest is prudent, but I am hoping that if we can enforce these limits (and similar ones for other media and genres), we will at least have an arguably reasonable position to provide to the Foundation and to defend before copyright holders.

I would ask that you focus your effort on reducing and keeping all episodes of The Sopranos and any other such works to these limits. Two things to consider:

Many great lines will not make it into our collection. But we're trying to focus on the very best, anyway. Ordinary exclamations and statements, mere plot points, too-visual or too-aural quotes, quotes heavy with scene descriptions — in short, any quotes that require the reader to have seen the show to appreciate why the quoted words are considered interesting — are almost never good candidates for inclusion. That doesn't make them bad quotes; it just makes them not-the-best for Wikiquote. Feel free to remove everything from episodes laden with these insider-type quotes to make room for the no-more-than-100-total others. There is absolutely no obligation to have at least one quote per episode, or even per season.

Copyright trimmers also have a responsibility to avoid injecting too much of their own preferences into the trimming. I've found many times, while trimming Mystery Science Theater 3000 (which I'm sure is in such bad shape now I'm afraid to look), that I had to resist the urge to remove all new quotes and leave just the ones I'd put in earlier. Try to allow folks to change the limited selections when several quotes are arguably equally pithy and one or more must go. It doesn't hurt to rotate the selection from time to time. Wikiquote will always be a work in progress.

Alright, well...assuming that The Sopranos is averaging 86 episodes, the goal would be to keep quotes at 3-5 maximum...and never cross that limit. I will trim the episodes myself, although it will detract heavily from the overall pages themselves. I already broke down the seasons into separate pages as was with "The Simpsons" in order to have a better accessible structure instead of one huge page. I will get to the actual trim process sometime soon and I will make sure it all corresponds to the guideline you set forth. Zarbon 14:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job

Good job with adding images to so many articles - they certainly improve the look of the pages! BD2412T 03:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you my dear BD2412. I do it hoping that it pleases the eye, and more importantly, my fellow contributors, such as yourself, whom I respect the opinion of greatly. Zarbon 03:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama's books and copyright status

You have done a good job finding Obama quotes from his books, but looking at the page now you seem to be quoting a full paragraph every five pages or so. Wikiquote must take care not to draw too many quotes from copywritten material. I'd suggest taking a second look at the quotes you have uploaded so far, and filtering out all but what you consider the most significant. Thanks. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In accordance to that, I have regulated as to how many I submitted. Most of the excerpts themselves are short, aside from two longer ones. I take approximately 5 quotes out of each chapter. There are ten or so chapters in the book, so I was hoping to submit a total of fifty quotations from the book as a whole. Baring in mind that if we added the entire amount of submitted material, it would come to about a page...out of 364 pages...I don't think a page is a lot of material in order to worry about filtering out content for now. In any case, I will try to submit only the most worthwhile from here on. Zarbon 06:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, buddy.

How would you like to help me out with a project I've been working on? Wikiquote:Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers - pretty straightforward. Needs a lot of formatting. The quotes are divided into themes, some of which are appropriate for transporting wholesale to existing theme pages (as with Forgiveness) or to create new theme pages (as with Integrity, to which another editor added some additional quotes). Many of the authors need either integration or new pages as well (although a few of them I am finding a hard time finding anything about). Let me know if you are interested. Cheers! BD2412T 18:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I may look into it (even if not anytime soon) and create pages in accordance to the authors or add to existing pages. However, after examining the link provided, it seems like a very vast amount of quotes; someone would have to dedicate a tremendous amount of time to the actual process of locating the correct sources and attribution. If I were to do it now, I probably wouldn't devote much of my energy to it, but after I finish my suggestions for quotes of the day, I will look into this project. Thanks again comrade. - Zarbon 19:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to locate sources and attributions - the quotes are self-sourcing (or, rather, they can all be sourced to the Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers, which is a quote-book in the public domain due to age). Of course, the sourcing could be improved, but they can go into articles (and stay there indefinitely) as is. But, yes it is a big project, that's why I'm looking for help! :-) BD2412T 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism from socks

In the future can you please post about these to WQ:AN instead of to pages of individual users? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I will try my best to post there from now on about any vandalism I am met with or find on the articles. - Zarbon 00:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball

Please refrain from the edit-warring you participated in on this page - I left a message on the other user's talk page as well. It's not that I necessarily think you were in the wrong, but it does little good to continue to go back and forth as you did. It would be better to take the high road and address your concerns in a more appropriate way. In any case, should the other user continue in this manner, he will undoubtedly be blocked for disruptive behavior - I just ask that you not also engage in such behavior. Thanks. ~ UDScott 03:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want me to stop???

well, I COULD just go away, but we must come to an agreement! Ready to chit-chat baby boy? I am thinking you posted ur e-mail for that reason. am i right?! Cyui 19:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I posted my email for people who would like to chat with me using msn, not to instigate vandalism. I worked very hard on wikiquote so I would appreciate that the articles I created and unstubbed aren't vandalized. - Zarbon 19:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to email me or add me to msn? - Zarbon 00:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiya! i made a msn live account, and added Y-O-U! when is you gonna be online? i is online now. Waitin' on you big boy. Let's get this shit over with. Cyui 02:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't added me because if you added me, then I would have been available to you or I would have received a message from you notifying me of an addition. - Zarbon 03:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I did. Now you have to accept it. - Zarbon 03:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My good sir, it has been accepted. now how do we talk? Cyui 04:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Look for me... I can't see you online? my msn name is Prince Zarbon. - Zarbon 04:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

nigga I'll try again tomorrow afternoon. so damn confusing when ya doin' it from a phone (me very tired and horny too, breaks cumcentration, I mean, concentration) I MISS MY COMPUTER!!! Noooooo!!... oh my, guess we're cyberfriends now. ok? if i could just find a site where we could have our conversations. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY?? Cyui 04:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can do it through phone, you have to do it through computer I think. - Zarbon 04:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You guys? I'm not aligned with anyone. If there has been any instances of vandalism, it is due to the aforementioned person. I only pointed this out earlier because I attempted to try and persuade this person to stop this idiotic behavior but they continued to persist with the same notion. If you need to contact me, please feel free to do so. I only use one account. This one. Never again mention me in the same highlight of vandals or socks. I've been a constant target of stupidity of this caliber for long enough. All I'm doing is defending my own rights as a user and I don't like being mentioned when I have nothing to do with any of this vandal. - Zarbon (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

re Recent vandalism... again...

I asked you this once already. Please do not post about this to my particular userpage. Please instead post about this to WQ:AN. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I wrote it all in based on the accounted information; I wouldn't have inserted anything without definite knowledge of the conversation; it's a nice resource for the interview and such. I thought it was alright to have conversational material without it being from a book only... basically televised programs and the like should be allowed on this resource, shouldn't it? - Zarbon (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your great work on pretty much all Dragon Ball articles. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Note

I have notified a global sysop about the vandalism, he should be blocked anytime soon. --Goldenburg111 (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

But what about the protection to all the articles. What that sockpuppet basically does is he follows certain users and vandalizes all their contributions. He's been doing this for over 10 years now (on all wiki sister projects) from what I can recount. I recommend that all the articles I forwarded to the admins here be protected or at least, semi-protected to ensure that no vandalism comes to them at a repeated basis. This is the reason why I wanted to obtain admin-ship myself, in order to avoid idiotic vandalism of this caliber. I suggest a checkuser be made against all the accounts that have participated in vandalizing my talk page and these specific articles. - Zarbon (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have protected your talk page against edits by unregistered users, which should at least minimize any disruption. Cheers! BD2412T 02:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Any luck protecting all the articles I linked you? - Zarbon (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm wondering why you'd want it deleted considering there's a lengthy wikipedia article to go along with it. Is it because of the sourcing? I have trouble locating the exact sources; I think the best thing to do is move the unsourced material to the talk page and maintain the article until the quotes are sourced. Is it due to sourcing? - Zarbon (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are no sources cited in the article. If just the unsourced material were removed then what remains would not be a quotations page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Global account

Hi Zarbon! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, DerHexer (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Need your expertise related to possible "Zarbon" socking

Zarbon, I think you've in the past had dealings with the "Zarbon" sockmaster?

I haven't been to the wikiquote for a while, but last I had been here, my talk page and many of my previous contributions had been vandalized by this same sockpuppet. There's a slew of names this person has gone by. I'd appreciate it if they were immediately halted in order to prevent further sockpuppet behavior and overall vandalism. From the looks of things, this person has indeed attempted to impersonate my username on numerous different wiki sister projects. Regardless, as this is the only person who is willing to go through these ends just to waste time at a childish and infantile level, it is more than likely the same exact person. Please feel free to block any and all usernames attached to their activity. Might I recommend that you follow all the articles that I previously made strong contributions to as well as that same sock-master tends to follow my contributions and either add gibberish to the articles or just plain remove much of my added information by reverting or vandalising said articles. Thanks in advance and let me know if there's any way I can help in identifying more fraudulent behavior in the future. - Zarbon (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, I have listed all my accounts of all the sister wiki projects on my userpage here so as to avoid confusion. If it's not listed on my userpage, then it is most likely not one of my accounts and is more than likely just another one of the vandal's socks or another impersonation of the same sort. Please let me know if there's any way I can help. - Zarbon (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)